RUSH: Sounds like Rick Santorum took it right to him. Sounding like me. This is what Mitch Daniels said that he's not ready to do yet. Santorum did it.

Mitch Daniels was not one of the debaters. He wasn't there to not take it to Obama. But Santorum was, and Rush is into Santorum, because Santorum sounds like Rush Santorum took it to Obama.

Here's more Santorum. Shannon Bream later: "Senator Santorum, you're often characterized as the most socially conservative in the GOP field, a man who may join you at some point in the primary, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, says Republican candidates should, quote, 'Declare a truce, close quote on social issues in the next election.' Is he right? Are you willing to tone down your positions on abortion and homosexuality in an effort to reach more voters and to help the GOP coalesce behind a more fiscally focused platform?"

SANTORUM: Anybody that would suggest that we "call a truce on the moral issues" doesn't understand what America is all about. America... America is a country that is based on this concept and the Declaration of Independence that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights." Rights come from God and the first of which is "life," the second of which is "liberty."

And the third of which is "the pursuit of happiness." Why leave that out?

Those two concepts really transformed the world...

And so did the third one!

... because it said that government was gonna be limited, allow people to be free and to pursue their own dreams....

Happiness!

.... to serve...

The dream is service?

... their God to serve their family and community -- and if we have a respect for human life, because we're all created equal...

All right. I see where you're going trying to go there. The right to life. The unborn are also human beings and they have rights too. (If that's supposed to connect to limited government, it's incoherent, because the argument for protecting the unborn demands more government, in the form of regulating abortion. But my point here is not about Santorum sticking to his long-held anti-abortion position. It's about what he doesn't say.)

And so those founding concepts, what transformed the world in this United States of America was a belief in family, a belief in life and the belief of dignity of every person. If we abandon that, we have given up on Americ [sic]

RUSH: So Santorum is not for a "truce on the social issues."

Ah, but Santorum only said why he had to keep fighting abortion. The question asked about a "truce" on abortion and homosexuality. Not only did Santorum fail to address homosexuality (unless Rush elided that), but he left out the "happiness" part of the unalienable rights. Santorum knows from past experience that those who reject his antagonism to homosexuality will jump on that phrase — "the pursuit of happiness" — and say that for gay people that includes gay sex.

120 comments:

A truce on political discussions? No wonder you voted for Obama. I, too, am for unity, if you agree with me. I hear footfalls of the right not to be offened or annoyed by those silly ones who disagree. Let's just call them crazy. Racist. There are so many wonderful ways to censor speech that can be disguised as something else. Help me out here. You've studied it, I'm sure.

Santorum never got the libertarian part did he? He should accept there is a difference between issues if one opposes them and issues that (while you do not agree with it) you can live and let live on.

Hugh Hewitt is willing to give Santorum a chance (just not anyone that Hewitt thinks does not have a chance):

This is why the GOP needs to rethink its debate schedule and why the RNC should take over the operation of the debates and exile Cain, Johnson and Paul as well as every other candidate without a prayer of winning. (Santorum is a long shot, but he has a realistic though small chance of winning the nomination, while the others do not.) The seriousness of the fiscal crisis requires the GOP and its candidates to act seriously, and allowing marginal candidates to eat up time and distract from the enormous problems facing the country is not serious.

Why should Santorum even address homosexuality? Homos can marry now. Nobody is stopping a homo man from marrying any woman he wants to. You need to look at the big picture, Professor. Sometimes, you come off as a one issue whiner.

As I recall, when Santorum ran unsuccessfully for re-election last time, opponents brought out that one of his key staffers was gay. Santorum said he knew that when he hired him, that the man was capable and while he personally objected to homosexuality, he had no intention of firing his aide.

Stuff like this rarely gets wide coverage as it run contrary to a lot of biases.

Well, good, then. If it is justified on the grounds of pursuit of happiness, there is no need to teach about it in school, and there is no reason to ever promote the question to young people of whether they're gay.

Abortion is regulated now. In the absence of the insulting lie that is Roe, it would remain regulated. To claim that people against the killing of children are advocating more government is simply a straw man diversion created by people who support the continuation of that killing but don't want to go to all the icky trouble of actually defending honestly that which they advocate. It's the same farcical attitude that refers to the killing of children as planning a family.

You will know gays have given a truce when(1) they leave marriage alone(2) they stop trying to slander people who don't agree with them (see Prop 8 in California)(3) they stop parading around in public at gay pride events, engaging in nakedness and openly sexual behavior.

Althouse.The professor in you is coming out once again now that the Republicans are regrouping to take down the socialism and relativism that you've excoriated over the past year or so.Please get a common sense clue.

In terms of moral issues, issues the government should have a say in, issues that are private verses those that impact others, and so many others, abortion and homosexuality are not even on the same planet in terms of relatedness. Support of or opposition to one has nothing to do with support of or opposition to the other.

- Lyssa

WV: "skimp": we should skimp on government, but it should still protect human rights.

"We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does." -- Santorum's words, Associated Press interview, 2003.

He feels (felt) that this stand is consistent with his firm belief in equality under the Constitution. I would venture to say that many other Americans also feel that this stand is consistent with equality under the Constitution. Probably many commenters on this site would agree. I don't, but that's what he said.

"The unborn are also human beings and they have rights too. (If that's supposed to connect to limited government, it's incoherent, because the argument for protecting the unborn demands more government, in the form of regulating abortion."

No, for two reasons at least. First: if a fetus at any stage of development is considered a human being in that stage of development, then abortion is simply homicide. Exceptions, such as terminating a pregnancy resulting from rape, would be exceptions to the homicide laws- not "regulations" per se.And second, Santorum was talking about limited federal government. If abortion, like homicide, is addressed on a state level, there is no contradiction. And of course there would be no necessary bureaucracy to administer federal funds for state-assisted homicide.

Get used to states-rights arguments popping up as part of smaller [federal] government arguments. And please, try really really hard to dispense with the entrenched notions that law is complicated and issues require federal solutions. It isn't, inherently, and they don't. See also "homosexual behavior."

"I see where you're going trying to go there. The right to life. The unborn are also human beings and they have rights too. (If that's supposed to connect to limited government, it's incoherent, because the argument for protecting the unborn demands more government, in the form of regulating abortion."

This passage by Ann Althouse is only coherent if she thinks the people who are characteristically for limited government want government to be so limited that it has no laws or power to reduce the incidence of murder, to punish the occurrence of it, or even to define it.

I know of now such proponents of "limited government". If Ann Althouse knows of such, I wish she would name them.

I like Mitch Daniels but he is wrong on this whole truce business. There can't be a truce when one side (THE LEFT) is constantly attacking traditional American religious, moral and family values. To suggest a truce is like saying we'll have a truce with Al Qaeda - we'll stop fighting but the they won't stop fighting. The left won't stop fighting. They keep attacking. They'll keep indoctrinating children in public schools, academia, through Hollywood and big government. They never stop.

It's not really a truce, anyway. It's unconditional surrender and it won't work.

I don't want to get into a huge abortion debate, but I do take issue with the assertion that there's an inconsistency between being a small government conservative and an proponent of right to life.

The basis for right to life advocacy is that abortion involves two individuals: the mother and the fetus. If the baby is an individual, then the fetus has the same right to life that the mother has.

Thus, when the supreme court determined that the mother's right to privacy allows her to terminate the fetus, its a big government denial of the rights of the fetus. Government denial of rights is about as "big" as big government gets. If government can deny the rights of the fetus, it can also deny the rights of any individual.

So there is no inconsistency between being pro-life and a small government conservative.

Just because some topics are sensitive and people vehemently disagree is no reason to ignore the subjects. The very fact that these topics are sensitive means that they MUST be addressed.

Having multiple third rail topics and programs that we just don't touch, like Social Security and Medicare, is the reason that we are teetering on the brink of national bankruptcy.

And......by the way......don't you think it a bit self serving that you are using Instapundit and your status as a guest blogger to link mostly to your OWN blog and drive up traffic for yourself? Hmmmmm?

Of course fiscal, economic and national defense issues take precedent over social issues best left to the individual states. Duh.

But the GOP has to fight back every time the left and its lackies in the MSM try to present false pretenses and questions. We have to fight back smart, but definitely not roll over. Which is why I like Breitbart. He does that.

Come on, Ann, you're playing those word games lawyers love when they're trying to snow a jury.

PETER V. BELLA said...

Santorum does not have a chance. Shot himself in the foot. He should just go home and forget about it.

People do not care about so called social issues anymore- except for the left and right fringes.

Wrong, at least the social issues part.

People still care, but putting food on the table has gotten a lot more important, thanks to Little Zero, so they prioritize, but those issues are still important since the Lefties justify a lot of their spending through the social issues.

The Libertarians are so desperate to be something other than a niche movement, they push the nonsense that it was advocacy on the social issues that cost the Republicans control of Congress in '06. This flies in the face of most of the trends we're seeing in the last few years.

Santorum's big sin was that he was a big spender and thought that being anti-abortion in a highly Catholic state would insulate him.

Is the pursuit of an independent way to happiness a victim less crime? Yes it is, if the gay lovers are married, or at the least age 18. Is the pursuit of marriage of a man and a woman as a way to secure their happiness and raise a family a crime? Same answer. This issue needs to stop being used to divide folks. That means the gay activists also need to stop political assaults on heterosexuals. Truces require both sides to quit the hate.

mockmook: This was a spontaneous comment, under pressure, during a debate.

But this is HIS issue. If Santorum is going to run he has to expect constant questions about his views on homosexuality and abortion. That's what a Santorum/Obama race would revolve around. It's just like Romney and healthcare, he should be expecting the question and have a response to it.

Rush is not stupid. He has to know that when Daniels is talking about a truce on social issues, he is not saying anyone has to abandon their principles. In fact Daniels is very socially conservative himself. I guess the fact that he signed the bill cutting of money to Planned Parenthood is not good enough for Rush..no siree.

The point is that Daniels feels as if we are facing a crisis in terms of our fiscal situation that is critical enough that other issues should take a back seat so that we can concentrate on avoiding ruin.

And to be honest, I know a lot of social conservatives who are not all that comfortable with Rush's life style.

Limited government means a government limited to priorities. Protecting life is a priority and an appropriate and necessary function of the government. Unless you want "limited" to mean the same as "none", there is certainly no inconsistency between limiting government and restricting abortion.

Those who argue that there is are arguing an extremely simpleminded position. They are either being intellectually dishonest or (willfully?) stupid.

I would never vote for Rick Santorum - nor would I ever vote for Huckabee or Gingrich. People who think it's ok to use the force of government to make me live by their beliefs - whether on the far right or the far left - just don't 'get it' imo. I like what I believe - I've spend many years getting here. I am offended by folks who want to shove their beliefs down my throat. That's not what America is about to me.

(If that's supposed to connect to limited government, it's incoherent, because the argument for protecting the unborn demands more government, in the form of regulating abortion. But my point here is not about Santorum sticking to his long-held anti-abortion position. It's about what he doesn't say.

By that reasoning, being against mugging and for limited government is incoherent, because being against mugging requires a police force and a judicial system. There is incoherence in this post, but it doesn't come from Santorum.

If the unborn are not human, then no justification for abortion is necessary - but if the unborn are human, then no justification for abortion is sufficient. - Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.

Professor - you're doing a lovely dance, as most robed ones do, around the entire issue of life. I completely fail to see how regulating abortion (when the objective is to eliminate it) requires more government, unless you need more police to track down illegal abortion mills?

Annually, abortion kills roughy 1.25 million human beings in the USA alone. Some issues are of greater immediate import.

It's nice to play intellectual, in the meantime, a human tragedy is occurring all around us.

Santorum did, during the debate, however, make a logical connection between liberty necessitating strong families, which necessitates strong marriages, which (presumably) necessitates a federal "definition of marriage as between one man and one woman," or, doing as much possible at each government level to ban gay marriage. That was the implication, at least, of his logical meandering.

Sunsong said: People who think it's ok to use the force of government to make me live by their beliefs - whether on the far right or the far left - just don't 'get it' imo.

Virtually all laws do that to some degree. Looking at it as forcing one to live by another's beliefs is silly and simple. The question should be whether they are forcing others to live by their beliefs in order to save or protect innocent people, or are they simply trying to mold society into what they wish it to be.

This is why abortion and homosexual issues are completely unrelated and deserve a completely different analysis.

Homosexuality and abortion may not be relevant to each other, but heterosexual behavior and pregnancy is. Homosexual and heterosexual behavior is not the same or equal, nothing wrong or hateful in that knowledge.

"And second, Santorum was talking about limited federal government. If abortion, like homicide, is addressed on a state level, there is no contradiction. And of course there would be no necessary bureaucracy to administer federal funds for state-assisted homicide."

Santorum was talking about rights coming from God and limiting government. Factor God into your federalism point if you can.

Murder laws are enforced by government. If you want to apply them to abortion, you need more government, not less.

And show me the abortion opponent who advocates first-degree murder penalties for women who get abortions and the doctors who perform them, and I will show you someone who has absolutely zero chance of getting elected President.

Terrye wrote: Rush is not stupid. He has to know that when Daniels is talking about a truce on social issues, he is not saying anyone has to abandon their principles.

Of course that is what Daniels is saying. It is axiomatic that a determination of which expenditures are essential and which are not is grounded in principles. That is, for example, what the opposition to funding for Planned Parenthood is about.

It is not, as the lefties deceitfully contend to cultivate the dupes, an assault on the health of women.

I live in Indiana. Daniels is a conservative, he is more conservative than Rush or Sarah Palin in terms of social issues. He was pro life before it was cool to be pro life and he signed that bill ending funding for Planned Parenthood in spite of the fact that the Feds were threatening to cut off funding.

Rush does not like Mitch Daniels, because Daniels does not kiss Rush's behind. He is good Governor with a 75% approval rating in this state. He has kept his promises.

The idea that we can not make saving this country from ruin a priority because some people out there seem to think that if fiscal conservatism is a priority then it follows that we are surrendering on everything else is stupid. During WW2 people concentrated on defeating the Axis because they represented an immediate threat. Honestly, you would have to be dense not to understand that.

Santorum leaves out "pursuit of happiness" because he is a Catholic and the idea that God endowed us with a right to pursue happiness is contrary to Catholic teaching. All of the ascetics, martyrs, and hermits who make up the Church Triumphant would be surprised to learn that entrepreneurship and social climbing was co-equal with the mortification of the flesh.

Santorum leaves out "pursuit of happiness" because he is a Catholic and the idea that God endowed us with a right to pursue happiness is contrary to Catholic teaching.[...]

Trying to read somebody's mind is usually a bad idea. Maybe he left it out because it wasn't central to his purpose?

At any rate and the pursuit of happiness, is a singularly unhelpful phrase. What does it mean? Jefferson's original wording was life, liberty, and property. The editors should have left well enough alone.

@Terrye: I don't know much about Daniels, but do you disagree with my point that:

"It is axiomatic that a determination of which expenditures are essential and which are not is grounded in principles. That is, for example, what the opposition to funding for Planned Parenthood is about"?

How does a truce on moral issues not undermine those principles? And why is such a truce not simply adopting the opposing position on moral issues, particularly abortion?

A truce does not undermine those issues because if you are actually going to get this country's fiscal house in order it will require the cooperation of a majority of the representatives..not just social conservatives.

And exactly what do you think it means anyway? Daniels is not saying we should all become pro choice, he is not pro choice, Indiana is not pro choice...but Daniels was able to balance the budget in this state, privatize some assets, cut property taxes, reform education by introducing charter schools and a voucher system and end collective bargaining for state employees by concentrating on each of those issues.

That is why he was elected. And that is why he won the state by a landslide in the last election when Obama won by half a percent. He managed that by appealing to all sorts of people and not just social conservatives.

Daniels realizes that there are a lot of people out there who want competent sane people making decisions that the rest of us have to live by.

As far as some people are concerned, the most important thing is to run on a ticket that requires not only that people agree with your plans for roads and schools and budgets, but that you agree on sodomy and same sex marriage and all kinds of stuff that has nothing to do with fixing this budget and limiting the size of government.

My main point is that I would NEVER vote for a Santorum or a Huckabee or a Gingrich *because* they want to use the force of government to shove their beliefs down my throat.

You all immediately want to attack my beliefs - lol

It's so predictable. And I said the far right *and* the far left do it - if you read more carefully.

It is amazing to me to see so many people who just can't seem to come to peace with the very real fact that we all don't believe the same things! I actually think it is a good thing that there are differences among us. I think it makes us a richer and more vibrant society.

For those - whether the far left or the far right - who want to force everyone to conform to their beliefs - you will find your base of support shrinking rather than growing.

Why should the wrong to engage in sodomy be considered more relevant to the right to pursue happiness than, say, the wrong to use prostitutes, the right to have sex with 12-year-old girls when the girls and their parents find it acceptable, or the wrong to get high on crystal meth?

People can be libertarians and of the opinion that anything that doesn't directly harm someone who doesn't directly want to be harmed should be legal. But everything anybody does ripples outward to affect everybody. That's how the universe works. Constitutional rights should be rights because they are enumerated constitutionally (as in the Bill of Rights), and be enumerated as rights because they are right, and not be rights because in some foggy impossible to define sense they are not direct wrongs. In particular, if I live in a society where many inhabitants are strung out on drugs or mate with ridiculous stupidity because they mate like dumb asses on account of having become addicted to sodomy (behavior that puts semen in the digestive system), well, that's not conducive to the happiness of me or my posterity, because, e.g., if it stays that way then before long a more reasonable society will displace us all. And realistically, sodomy being addictive as it is, there is grave danger once it spreads enough that the pro-sodomizers get control of government and give sodomizers special privileges, like the privilege to live in a society where the law can't discriminate between sex and sodomy, while taking away the rights of the people to criticize sodomy. It will become difficult for even those who hate sodomy to avoid having their children brainwashed into accepting sodomy. Society could become before long extremely dissolute and decadent. Then in so far as who succeeds the most and gains the most respect thereby in the population at large, the kind of trickery useful in fooling people to accept sodomy will become increasingly useless because people in general will already mostly assume sodomy is America and apple pie. The men the majority of Americans look up to will no longer be those effective at seducing into decadence, but those who have the most addictive and terror-inducing semen and who can glorify these addictions and terrors with the most quackery and militaristic rapacious homicidal significance. Welcome to violent fascism and our leaders killing those they find oppose those ideals they pretend to hold for the sake of making their dicks look not only rapaciously imposing but rightfully so. Then welcome to militarism to glorify forcible sodomy. We'll go after the cleanest and thus most powerful countries, and even if humanity still exists, we will lose the war utterly. The Government would not give up until it be obliterated into ruins, because forcible sodomizers once in control don't give up merely because logic says they are in a hopeless position. If it were in their nature to give up thus, forcible sodomy would not work as a rape tool, because in those societies stupid enough for it to be workable, forcible sodomizers are too deluded to realize sodomy can make rape work for them more effectively than it logically would seem from the (wrong) deluded hypothesis that sodomy is neither addictive nor algesic (the opposite of analgesic).

If sodomy is wrong because it contains addictive and terror-causing chemicals (as I think is the case, and yes my opinion is better than that of the elites at universities, etc., because unlike them, I have actually thought about the question), that's probably the way it will be if the government gets sufficiently pro-sodomy. Our diversity will not protect us. In fact, it makes us unusually susceptible because bad men in a diverse society more tend to vote to glorify their dicks than to vote patriotically (selfish and bigoted though patriotism can be). So no one will be able effectively to explain to me how laws relating to sodomy can't hurt the happiness of those Americans (or their posterity) who don't like sodomy.

Jefferson picked up the phrase from John Locke, who uses it in the following passage:

A constant determination to a pursuit of happiness no abridgment of liberty. But to give a right view of this mistaken part of liberty let me ask,- Would any one be a changeling, because he is less determined by wise considerations than a wise man? Is it worth the name of freedom to be at liberty to play the fool, and draw shame and misery upon a man's self? If to break loose from the conduct of reason, and to want that restraint of examination and judgment which keeps us from choosing or doing the worse, be liberty, true liberty, madmen and fools are the only freemen: but yet, I think, nobody would choose to be mad for the sake of such liberty, but he that is mad already. The constant desire of happiness, and the constraint it puts upon us to act for it, nobody, I think, accounts an abridgment of liberty, or at least an abridgment of liberty to be complained of. God Almighty himself is under the necessity of being happy; and the more any intelligent being is so, the nearer is its approach to infinite perfection and happiness. That, in this state of ignorance, we short-sighted creatures might not mistake true felicity, we are endowed with a power to suspend any particular desire, and keep it from determining the will, and engaging us in action. This is standing still, where we are not sufficiently assured of the way: examination is consulting a guide. The determination of the will upon inquiry, is following the direction of that guide: and he that has a power to act or not to act, according as such determination directs, is a free agent: such determination abridges not that power wherein liberty consists. He that has his chains knocked off, and the prison doors set open to him, is perfectly at liberty, because he may either go or stay, as he best likes; though his preference be determined to stay, by the darkness of the night, or illness of the weather, or want of other lodging. He ceases not to be free; though the desire of some convenience to be had there absolutely determines his preference, and makes him stay in his prison.

The necessity of pursuing true happiness the foundation of liberty. As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action, and from a necessary compliance with our desire, set upon any particular, and then appearing preferable good, till we have duly examined whether it has a tendency to, or be inconsistent with, our real happiness: and therefore, till we are as much informed upon this inquiry as the weight of the matter, and the nature of the case demands, we are, by the necessity of preferring and pursuing true happiness as our greatest good, obliged to suspend the satisfaction of our desires in particular cases.

Yes, I vote for the person, not the party. I am an independent - not a republican or a democrat. I would vote for Daniels or Huntsman over Obama - but choose Obama over those who primarily represent the religious right.

I am concerned about the debt and I think Obama either doesn't care or doesn't grasp it - but personal liberty, for me, the *right* to believe what I want and to act accordingly is a higher priority.

I am one person writing here - but I suspect I am representative of many. I am not so self-important as to think a candidate ought to represent me 100%. It is almost always the lesser of two evils for me. Santorum offends me so deeply that I would prefer Obama.

And on, and on. I find it odd that you, and many others, worries more about the liberties or 'liberties' you may lose under a 'religious right' President, than worries about the liberties you've already lost to sweet-talking technocrats. Very, very odd.

I find it odd that you, and many others, worries more about the liberties or 'liberties' you may lose under a 'religious right' President, than worries about the liberties you've already lost to sweet-talking technocrats. Very, very odd.

Of course you do - because you look at things through the prism of you personal beliefs. Mine are different than yours. As I said, for me, it is almost always choosing betweent he lesser of two evils. Indeed, Obama does not respect my liberties. That's true. Look at Obamacare - that was rammed through with no repsect whatever for those who didn't want it.

What am I saying here is that, for me, Santorum and the religious right represent a greater loss of personal liberty than Obama does. That you see it differently is understood :-)

"Santorum was talking about rights coming from God and limiting government. Factor God into your federalism point if you can."

I makes no difference if rights come from the God of Abraham, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the "popular will" for that matter. If the constitution we now have is followed, federalism is perfectly well respected--even if abortions under some or even most circumstances are made a crime under the national law. The 14th amendment applies to all states a prohibition generally against participating in the ending of someone's life without due process. Abortions for convenience can be proscribed without federalism being impugned in any way. States have no license to murder, to condone it, or to pay for it. Neither do doctors or mothers. In fact, an argument can be made that merely by existing with the text it has, the 14th amendment implicitly requires a definition in federal law of when in the course of a human life its protections inhere to an individual. If Congress creates no such definition, the common law can and should. A candidate for president can advocate for such a definition and be respecting federalism and subsidiarity quite rigorously.

"Murder laws are enforced by government. If you want to apply them to abortion, you need more government, not less."

There is no contradiction between wanting government to be smaller in toto and limited to what the organic law creates to be government's job, and wanting murder to be defined in law and for it to be vigorously punished.

"And show me the abortion opponent who advocates first-degree murder penalties for women who get abortions and the doctors who perform them, and I will show you someone who has absolutely zero chance of getting elected President."

Okay.

If I show you a presidential candidate who wants zero federal dollars spent on abortions of convenience, for federal dollars to be spent on abortions solely to save the life of the mother in a narrowly delineated fashion, or even one who wants the prosecution of mothers, doctors, nurses, anesthetists, and the state officials overseeing such for federally legislated (14th Am.) human rights violations who participate in abortions of convenience in say, solely 3rd trimester abortions--that person is eminently electable. The policies would be quite constitutional.

And they would be just.

If simultaneously that candidate advocated placing the ludicrously unconstitutional Social Security and Medicare programs on a path to extinction a la Chile, and undoing the equally unconstitutional Wickard decision--and that candidate was successful--why then we'd have far less and more limited government then, wouldn't we?

sunsong wrote: ... you look at things through the prism of your personal beliefs....What [I am] saying here is that, for me, Santorum and the religious right represent a greater loss of personal liberty than Obama does....

As far as we know, Santorum opposes abortion and gay marriage, as does the religious right. As an Evangelical Christian, I'm not so sure that we and/or the religious right are supporting implementing government policy on much else.

Obama will tell us what health care to have, what cars to drive, whether or not our bond purchases will be honored, which businesses and unions will be bailed out with our tax dollars, where and when we can drill for oil, what kind of energy we can use, etc., etc., etc.

As far as we know, Santorum opposes abortion and gay marriage, as does the religious right. As an Evangelical Christian, I'm not so sure that we and/or the religious right are supporting implementing government policy on much else.

Really? What about Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya? etc Defense spending? What kind of taxes do you support? (I support the Fair Tax.) What about Farm Subsidies? Transportation?Entitlements? George W increased, not decreased, the size and scope of government.

I repeat: that you see things is differently is understood - lol - you have your prism, I have mine - and that's good :-)

Because our system seems to work better than any other to date, in the way theory which is not contested by any observation after long investigation is termed a law, I'd say Locke is empirically confirmed--no error noted.

Really? What about Afghanistan? Iraq? Libya? etc Defense spending? What kind of taxes do you support? (I support the Fair Tax.) What about Farm Subsidies? Transportation?Entitlements? George W increased, not decreased, the size and scope of government.

What does any of this rant have to do with the religious right?

Iraq aside, do you seriously believe conservative Christians uniformly support our current actions in Afghanistan and Libya, oppose The Fair Tax, and supported Bush's spending policies. And what the hell do farm subsidies have to do with the so-called Religious Right's beliefs?

Tom Perkins wrote: hombre, I'm making the point that it does not matter with respect to federalism where rights "come" from if the current constitution is respected. You are free to stop reading wherever you want.

You're even free to imagine you've made some counterpoint of a vast and deep nature ;^)

I know the point you're making, I made it hours ago. (12:45)

Why would a vast, deep counterpoint have been necessary to a disrespectful reference to God. An in-kind response seemed perfectly adequate.

do you seriously believe conservative Christians uniformly support our current actions in Afghanistan and Libya [and Iraq]

In a word, yes :-) - maybe not uniformly. Your claim was that the religious right had only two issues that they would use the force of government to achieve. I think that most "conservative Christians" also support a massive dfense budget and our current wars...(and all kinds of other programs.) That's why I asked you to come clean on what else you support government doing

@sunsong: The positions re defense and wars you attribute to conservative Christians are positions held by most conservatives and many moderates. They have nothing to do with being Christian or Christianity.

Supporting the troops (and their families) by Christians does not equate to support for wars. Support for defense spending frequently does equate to a secular conservative notion about the proper constitutional role of the federal gov't.

As for coming clean: I don't support the continuation of the war in Afghanistan; I don't support any action in Libya other than non-military humanitarian relief where appropriate; I think the Fair Tax has some appeal and I don't support heavy progressive taxation; I am ambivalent about farm subsidies. I don't expect to be shunned by other Christians for those views.

That section of the Declaration is indeed inspired by Locke (though as mentioned in the HBO John Adams series, Lockean Jefferson originally called the truths "sacred and undeniable", presumably since Locke was rather parsimonious in allowing something to be called self-evident, and no principles were to Locke innate).

Though Locke is my favorite philosopher, I think he is inadequate when he argues against applying the notion of freedom to the will. Though one might call it a different name, a will determined on the one hand by natural tendencies (Locke does believe in innate tendencies) and on the other by an understanding of those tendencies that is not sullied by deceptions from other people is in some sense more free than a will determined by tendencies that are caused on the one hand directly by pleasure or happiness chemicals, etc., introduced artificially in the brain, or on the other by an understanding of one's tendencies influenced heavily by deceptions from others. In particular, it is preferable as a general principle that the will be determined by natural tendencies free from chemical addictions; that is an important sense I think people are getting at when they say the will should be free.

As for chemical addictions, I don't think Locke gets them, which is rather forgivable in his age when it wasn't known the brain works via chemicals. E.g., he writes "Bread or tobacco may be neglected where they are shown to be useful to health, because of an indifferency or disrelish to them; reason and consideration at first recommends, and begins their trial, and use finds, or custom makes them pleasant." His error here I'm afraid is also tied up with what I sense as an excess tendency to feel guilt about non-addictive quick pleasures and to not credit the idea that people can be motivated in particular matters just from love of goodness as opposed to from pleasure. He mostly thinks when people desire to do bad things it is because they don't understand things well enough to see the distant future consequences like damnation. He doesn't see distinctly what particular quick pleasures, namely the unnatural ones like sodomy, are the ones he especially needs to guard against, and so his presumed difficulty in avoiding being led at least moderately by the other presumably harmless ones has led him to underestimate his virtue (and perhaps to not care about sex enough, considering he presumably had no children).

As to the question at hand, Locke's inadequacy is unfortunate, since the very issue is at the crux of the matter of what an unalienable right to liberty means. I think a power to act upon unnatural volitions is not a sort of liberty, or at least, if one chooses to define it else, being unnatural, is not a sort of liberty that should be protected, though as John's quote suggests, I'm thinking Locke would nevertheless consider that it should not be protected, but for the reason that sodomy appeals merely to those with a short-sighted view of happiness that in itself is like a chain that forcibly separates them from true greater happiness (or because it infringes on the rightful liberties of others).

No morality is not just subjective for people who are supporters of relativism. That is absurd.

I know Pentecostals who think it is immoral for a woman to cut her hair. I know Amish who believe it is a immoral to join the military. I know Catholics who still think divorce is immoral, which means that Rush is living in sin.

The problem with people like Santorum is that they strike a lot of people as smug and sanctimonious and people resent being preached to and treated like they are barbarians just because they don't agree with everything a guy like that says. It is annoying.

Obviously I can read..because golly gee I can type. The pursuit of happiness is the right to pursue your dreams without the state or government interfering with your right to live your life as you choose. If you don't like my interpretation..well I don't much care.

"Why would a vast, deep counterpoint have been necessary to a disrespectful reference to God."

Hombre, it was not a disrespectful reference to either the God of Abraham or any other deity--it was a reference to how the plurality of beliefs about that (and any other supposed deity) have no relevance to the constitution.

do you seriously believe conservative Christians uniformly support our current actions in Afghanistan and Libya [and Iraq]

In a word, yes :-) - maybe not uniformly."

Then again, so does Obama. So how does this explain a preference for him?

I'm not a particularly religious person. But when someone portrays the religious right as something forcing their views on America I wonder what they're talking about. Organized religion has lost more influence in America over the past 70 years or so than any other civil institution has ever held in total. I cannot think of an important issue being pushed by the right that is not a defense of the status quo. Or to state it another way, the religious right might defend traditional America even on issues I disagree with, but saying they are pushing change on the rest of us is uniformly wrong.

When I hear this assertion I recall the overwrought emotionalism fostered by academic activists and carried by student missionaries out into the world.

I'd like to hear what you think qualifies. Because after your dodge into foreign policy it seems you know your assertion has no supporting evidence.

I understand the term moral relativism..I am saying it has nothing to do with a truce on social issues.

You seem to think that if Mitch Daniels says that we should make fiscal policy a priority at this point in time, then somehow or other he is saying there is no difference between good and evil or right and wrong.

And while you are being condescending it is worth noting that unlike Santorum who lost his last election and Rush who never even ran in one..Daniels has always kept his word to the people here in Indiana. He is a conservative man, a religious man and he does not deserve to be treated like an apostate by a failed politician or a talk radio host.

I cannot think of an important issue being pushed by the right that is not a defense of the status quo. Or to state it another way, the religious right might defend traditional America even on issues I disagree with, but saying they are pushing change on the rest of us is uniformly wrong.

I have not said that religious right is "pushing change". The religious right is pushing their religion. That's what offends me. It offends me so deeply that I would support Obama over Santorum or Huckabee. However, I would support Daniels over Obama. I would support Huntsman over Obama.

The religious right was, essentially, George W's base. They worked hard to elect and re-elect him. I don't know how you could claim otherwise. They supported his foreign and domestic policy. Again, I don't know how you could claim otherwise.

Hombre: You seem to think that if Mitch Daniels says that we should make fiscal policy a priority at this point in time, then somehow or other he is saying there is no difference between good and evil or right and wrong.

That is what is absurd.

Well that certainly would have been absurd if I had ever said it, but I didn't. Obviously, fiscal issues should be a priority.

I said that considering social, i.e., moral, issues is an integral part of making decisions about expenditures.

If you are able to offer a coherent counter argument, please do. Otherwise, quit making stuff up.

Btw, the comment you made at 1:48 was a classic example of moral relativity whether or not you recognize it as such.

sunsong wrote: The religious right is pushing their religion. That's what offends me.... The religious right was, essentially, George W's base. They worked hard to elect and re-elect him. I don't know how you could claim otherwise. They supported his foreign and domestic policy.

Do you even notice the inconsistency here? Supporting Bush's "foreign and domestic policy" equates with "pushing their religion?" What absolute horseshit!

Moreover, it was mainstream Republicans who were Bush's base. People of the right, Christian or otherwise, simply did not support Bush's spending policies and deficits. Most conservatives, including Christians, held their noses and voted for Bush because Kerry was a liberal extremist and a fabulist.

The same nitwits who nominated McCain were Bush's base despite the reputed personal animosity between the two. You remember, "McBush."

The religious right pushes their religion. That's what Santorum is doing. The big clue is in the descriptor :*religious* right. What kind of right?

religious

We disagree about the religious right's support of George W. I stand by my statement that they were essentially his base.

hombre, it seems to me you have a hard time coming to peace with the idea that we all don't agree :-) There are over 300,000,000 AMericans. We will NEVER all agree :-) YOu see things through the prism of your beliefs - I see through mine

"The religious right is pushing their religion. That's what offends me."

How? Not through government. How does the fact that they supported a specific candidate translate to either the candidate or the group pushing their religion?

You're ridiculously oversensitive on religion. I occasionally get missionaries at the door because there's a Seventh Day Adventist somewhere nearby. I tell them to leave and they do.

So you claim to be against people enshrining their beliefs in government, but you vote for them anyway because other people who don't do this are still scary in some nebulous undefinable way. And this is the academic activists goal. They selectively cite evidence and overstate facts so repeatedly that people internalize them. Those people act on the internalization instead of reality.

So M. Simon, care to answer here a question you've either not acknowledged or answered with irrelevancies in the past?

What is the moral distinction, what milestone of development makes it not a murder, to kill a child one month from leaving the womb as opposed to one month out of it?

It is a question the "pro-abortion" side as it is currently constituted must answer in a fashion a majority of people find to be definitive, or the "pro-abortion" side will lose this fight in a far worse fashion than they need to.

People see what they want to see. The religious right does not push their religion??? My God - how can you even type the words???

Did you read the article that originates this thread??? Are you aware that when the religious right use the word *moral* or *morality* they are referring to their religious beliefs? Do you understand that?

What do you think the anti-gay rights movement is all about??? It's about the religious belief that homosexuality is a sin - an abomination. Who populates the anti-abortion movement???? What about stem cell research??? What about Teri Schiavo??? Where have you been Marshal??? Why did Christian conservatives support the Iraq war in such high numbers??? Why did Bush and Rove hustle to get so many anti-gay measures on the State ballots in 2004?? Hint: it wasn't to entice the secular humanists to vote :-)

The religious right push their religion. And that deeply offends me. 'Let and let live' is the right answer. I guess you have to think about it :-)

It's about personal liberty. It's about the *right* to believe whatever you want to believe (even if it's not ok with Marshal) and act accordingly.

Your original position was that the religious right is pushing their religion through government. Now your fallback, that they consider homosexual sex a sin, is that they personally don't support something you think they should. It's not at all clear you even understand there is a difference between having an opinion, trying to influence others, and using government to enforce your opinion. You claim to be against only this last but your examples pull from all three.

The anti-abortion movement isn't pushing religion, it's a debate about when a person is sufficiently developed receive the protection of law.

You refer to various positions as "anti-gay rights", but in fact they are defenses of leftist activists enforcing social change via government. Your position is a good argument for why there can be no "truce" on social matters. The left invents wedge issues to push via government and then calls resistance to them a violation of the truce.

Your bizarre assertion the Iraq was is supported by religion is more nonsense. Conservatives tend to have a certain outlook on how the world works which is different than liberals. This means the kind of foreign policies each support are different. Even your accusation doesn't explain how religion is supposed to create support for the Iraq War. So either you never learned correlation doesn't imply causation or you intentionally forget that when convenient. I note that your original assertion included the Libyan War as an example of how the religious right is pushing their religion through government. How?

So your entire position boils down to "religious people believe in religion and therefore their opinions on all subjects count as religious opinions, and any attempt to support them is pushing religion". This is completely farcical.

I think we've reached the limit of what we can discuss. You are sure I'm not being honest with you. I am sure you are not being honest with me.

The fact that the religious right want to use government to force everyone to live by their beliefs is so obvious that there is no need to try and convince you. That's what they are attempting with proposed amendments to the Constitution to ban abortion and deny equal rights to gays.

The fact that the religious right is anti-gay is also obvious. It does not need to be proven. Gays have the same *rights* as everyone else. That's not for you or anyone else to determine. Gays are human beings and all human beings have the same inalienable rights. Just as slavery was a grave injustice and the right thing was to rectify it. Just as not permitting women the vote was a grave injustice and the right thing was to rectify that. Denying gays equal rights is also a grave injustice that must be rectified. That there are people who don't understand that doesn't change the reality.

If you are trying to sell the idea that nothing should ever change or be corrected or improved - good luck with that - lol - you will never get close to a majority.

As to Iraq - look it up - the biggest supporters were the religious right. And I will simply point out to you there is a difference between asking a question and making an assertion.

...Santorum’s assertion, quite frankly, reflects a certain constitutionally illiteracy and is at odds at a fundamental level with modern conservatism. Indeed, since the presidency requires that the chief executive “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” — which presupposes one understands what’s in it — Santorum has in the most concise way possible demonstrated his lack of qualifications to serve.

"That's what they are attempting with proposed amendments to the Constitution to ban abortion and deny equal rights to gays."

No, this is their response to courts forcibly changing millenia old institutions against the will of the citizens. Government didn't create this institution, and it has no authority to change it.

"It does not need to be proven."

Actually, it does. If it were so obvious you should be overwhelmed with evidence, yet you can cite none. Note again the bait and switch where your assertion is that they use government to force their social preferences but the evidence you cite is that they don't like gays. Even to the extent this is true, so what? You don't like them either.

And you keep citing "denying gays equal rights" as if this proves something. Where are gays being denied the right to peaceably assemble? I'll write my congressman as soon as you can tell me where.

I also love when you pretend my position is never any change anywhere. When you have to resort to this level of strawman you should just quit. It makes you look ridiculous.

And yes, I know many on the religious right supported Iraq. They're not the religious left for a reason. None of this even comes close to showing they supported this war because of their religious beliefs.

So the conclusion is you're single issue voter whose issue is so unimportant that until ten years ago most gays derided marriage as a bourgeois institution for idiots.